Date: October 1903
Pages: 307-313

SKETCHES OF A PROJECT FOR AN APPEAL FROM THE C.C. AND THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE C.O. TO THE OPPOSITION

309

of the party (expressed, for example, in the cessation of collaboration in *Iskra* from No. 467), as well as in comrade Blumenfeld's departure from the printing house), sharp attacks on the personal composition of the centers [and moreover this criticism is disloyal, because it is conducted, firstly, on the quiet, without direct indication of the errors of the centers, indication directed toward the centers; secondly, it precedes the activity of the centers,—finally], the demand approved by the Congress to alter this composition as a condition for ending the boycott, in conversation with a member of the C.C. the obstinate designation of themselves as a "group" [*], contrary to the party statute [**], —all this conduct cannot be recognized as corresponding to party duty. All this conduct stands on the border of direct violation of discipline and reduces to nothing the decision adopted by the Congress (in the party statute) that the distribution of the forces and means of the party is entrusted to the Central Committee.

*) The words "sharp attacks on the personal composition" in the manuscript are corrected from the words: "sharp criticism of the personal composition." Ed.

**) The words: "in conversation with a member of the C.C. the obstinate designation of themselves as a 'group', contrary to the party statute"—in the manuscript are written as a footnote, at the bottom of the page after the following words in the text: "by all members of the party and first of all," without indication of which exact place in the main text this note relates to. Here, in the printed text, we have referred it to this place, as most fitting here by sense. Ed.

in which this dissatisfaction is expressed, in no way can be recognized as a normal and permissible phenomenon] attitude toward the party on the part of its members, cannot be recognized as corresponding to party duty, especially under Russian conditions of illegal work, when this withdrawal of persons and means[*] transforms (with respect to these persons) into nothing that decision unanimously adopted at the Congress of the party statute, which states that the C.C. distributes the forces and means of the party.[**] Under the conditions of activity of the Russian revolutionary party, such withdrawal threatens that—even against the will of those withdrawing party members who conduct themselves loyally—direct violation of discipline will begin, actions and steps will begin that are not only not coordinated with the plans and orders of the C.C., but even counteract them.

LENINSKII SBORNIK

To avoid this result, concerning the harm of which to the party there is nothing to elaborate, the C.C. and the editorial board of the C.O. consider it necessary to remind all those who passively withdraw of their party duty. Whatever the reasons for dissatisfaction with the central institutions of the party, this dissatisfaction cannot and must not lead to withdrawal from work. Whether the dissatisfaction stems from personal irritation, whether it is connected in the minds of the dissatisfied with differences of shade in views on any question of party work,—in neither case is it permissible or worthy of party members to withdraw from party work under the control and guidance of the central institutions. The editorial board of the C.O. declares that it has already invited all former editors and contributors of *Iskra* to collaborate on the C.O., and repeats now even more insistently its appeal, reminding that it is a question of work for the entire party, [and not] and declaring that [not a single comrade—party member, whatever views he may hold, is excluded by the C.C. or the editorial board from] would be a direct violation of duty on the part of a party institution if, in evaluating workers, it were to be guided by [different views—]

The C.C. and editorial board of the C.O. therefore remind all members of the so-called "opposition" of their party duty. Dissatisfaction with the personal composition of the centers, whether it stems from personal irritations or from disagreements that seem to one or another party member to be serious, cannot and must not lead to disloyal conduct. If the centers, in the opinion of certain persons, make certain errors, then it is the obligation of all party members to point out these errors before all members of the party and first of all, to point them out to the centers themselves. The C.C. and the editorial board of the C.O. are equally obliged, in the name of party duty, to consider all such indications with all care, irrespective of who submits them. Meanwhile, neither the editorial board of the C.O. nor the C.C. have received[*] from the so-called opposition any direct and definite indications of errors or expressions of dissatisfaction and disagreement in anything whatsoever; comrade Martov refuses even to take a place in the editorial board of the C.O. and in the highest Council of the party,[**] although only in this post could he have revealed before the party all the errors he discerns in the activity of the centers.

*) The word "received" in the manuscript is corrected from "receive." Ed.

The C.C. and the editorial board of the C.O. are firmly convinced that the Russian S.D.R. Party will not allow influence on the institutions it has created through unlawful, secret (secret before the party) and disloyal means of pressure and boycotts. The C.C. and the editorial board of the C.O. declare that they will in any case remain at their posts, until the [organized] party removes them, that they will fulfill their duty and will apply all efforts to the realization of everything entrusted to them. Attempts at "boycott" will not deflect the editorial board of the C.O. or the C.C. one iota from the path on which they are proceeding, fulfilling the will of the Congress,—these attempts will cause only minor unpleasantness and major losses in individual branches of party work, these attempts will show only a lack of understanding of party duty and its violation by those who would continue them.[***]

1) Three columns of names above the text of the document apparently represent a list of opposition members abroad, whom, in Vladimir Ilyich's opinion, should have received the projected appeal from the C.C. and the editorial board of the C.O. The list presented is far from complete; it lacks a whole series of names of opposition members actually abroad at that time (for example, Blumenfeld, Koltsov-Ginzburg, Deich and others). One may suppose that Vladimir Ilyich initially intended to distribute the appeal of the C.C. and editorial board of the C.O. projected by him not to all opposition members, but only to the most active part of them. This is confirmed, among other things, by the circumstance that Vladimir Ilyich was at first definitely determined to address the appeal only to 9 persons listed in the first two columns: the first contained the "quartet" of former editors of *Iskra*; the second [contained] the closest collaborator of *Iskra* L. D. Trotsky and a number of the most prominent practitioners of the opposition who were preparing to go to Russia. The third list of names, apparently added later, apparently contains those opposition members whose political physiognomy became clear to Vladimir Ilyich only subsequently. At least, concerning the first two names in this list, Gurvich (Dane) and Khinchuk, Lenin considered it necessary to mention specially in his letter to members of the C.C. in Russia of October 5 (above, p. 274), as Martovites. This mention gives reason to think that their political line only recently became fully clear to Vladimir Ilyich.

I. G. Leman-Smidovich (Dimka)—social-democrat, *Iskra*-ist, after the Second Congress of the R.S.D.R.P. Menshevikite; participated in the revolutionary S.D. movement from the 1890s; in winter 1895-96 was a candidate for the central nucleus of the Petersburg Union of Struggle; from November 1900 to April 1901 was secretary of the editorial board of *Iskra*; in summer 1901 worked in Königsberg in transportation as a representative of *Iskra* in the group of Latvians E. Kh. Rolau and E. Skubik (see above note 18 to document 5, pp. 77-78); in July 1902 left for Russia on business of *Iskra* literature transportation; in August 1902 was arrested with literature at the station in Kremenchug and sent to Kyiv; on January 26 (13), 1903 escaped from the gendarme administration after interrogation; in February emigrated abroad; after the split at the Second Congress of the party, I. joined the Mensheviks; immediately after the Congress joined the boycott of the central institutions of the party from the side of the opposition; participated in the Geneva conference of 17 Mensheviks between September 13 and 20, 1903, which worked out a resolution-platform on the immediate tasks of the opposition in the intra-party struggle (above, pp. 246-249); from the end of October was secretary of the fractional organization of the minority; participated in the 2nd Congress of the League in the group of the minority (at the League Congress of the former majority); by the Menshevik majority of the Congress was elected to the administration of the League and was secretary of the administration; in years of reaction withdrew from political activity.

2) Here are meant all attempts at personal negotiations with the most prominent members of the opposition, undertaken since the Congress by the editorial board of the C.O. and members of the C.C.: appeal to Martov in London immediately after the Congress through C.C. member V. A. Noskov, personal meeting of V. I. Lenin with Martov in Geneva at the end of August, conversation of I. Kh. Lalaev with Martov on August 30, letter of V. I. Lenin to Potresov of September 13, subsequent negotiations of Lenin and Plekhanov through Dane and with the participation of C.C. member F. V. Lengnik. About all the enumerated facts of negotiations there is more detailed discussion in the letters cited above: Lenin—to Potresov of September 13, Dane—to Plekhanov of September 29 and Dane—to Lengnik of October 2.

3) "Hostile attitude of several comrades-practitioners"—an allusion to declarations of L. N. Radchenko, R. S. Gal'bershtadt and A. A. Shneyerson to C.C. member F. V. Lengnik, about which the latter reported in detail in a letter to other C.C. members of October 5 (above, p. 268).

4) I. S. Blumenfeld, manager of the *Iskra* printing house, despite his sympathies for the opposition, was initially loyal to the C.C. and to the editorial board of the C.O. and remained at his post after the Congress (excerpts from Martov's letters of August 31 and September 13, relating to this fact, are cited above, pp. 243-244, note 71). Soon, however, Blumenfeld joined the boycott and left the printing house.

5) "Withdrawal of means," of which Vladimir Ilyich speaks here, is the cutting off of access by the C.C. and editorial board of the C.O. to certain permanent and large sources of financial means personally connected with the leaders of the opposition. This was one of the most essential manifestations of the boycott on the part of the opposition. Among the sources withdrawn from the party by the opposition belonged A. M. Kalmykova (see above V. I. Lenin's correspondence with her, pp. 201-207).

6) The exclusive right of the C.C. to distribute the forces and means of the party is mentioned in § 6 of the party statute adopted by the Second Congress of the R.S.D.R.P. (*Protocols*, p. 8).

7) No. 46 of *Iskra*, which appeared on August 28 [new style], was the first issue of the C.O. after the Congress under the new editorial board.

8) Here the discussion concerns declarations of opposition practitioners L. N. Radchenko, R. S. Gal'bershtadt and A. A. Shneyerson in conversation with F. V. Lengnik, mentioned above (see note 3).

9) Here the formulation of the idea remained unfinished that in evaluating workers, the central institution of the party will not be guided by differences in views and will not exclude from work party members of different opinions.

10) At this point in his project, Vladimir Ilyich undoubtedly has in mind Martov's official written refusal of October 9, in response to the equally official written appeal to him from the editorial board of the C.O. of October 6. In the penultimate sentence of Martov's indicated letter, he says: "I refused the proposal, which you now repeat, to take a place in the editorial board and Council."

11) The second variant apparently lacks a concluding section.

---

In the first half of October (new style) abroad and in all probability by Vladimir Ilyich, a draft notification from the C.C. about the Second Congress of the party was compiled. This draft F. V. Lengnik between October 12 and 15 sent to Russia for approval by the C.C. In a letter to G. M. Krzhizhanovsky and V. A. Noskov of October 15, F. V. Lengnik wrote definitely about the intention to print an official notification from the C.C. about the Congress in issue 50 or 54 of *Iskra*. Vladimir Ilyich was undoubtedly also preparing an article about the Congress for the issue in which the C.C. notification was to appear. An indirect indication of this exists in F. V. Lengnik's letter to the C.C. of October 12, where he wrote: "In two weeks issue 50 will come out, in which, we hope, there will probably be printed about the Congress." In Vladimir Ilyich's papers a sketch of the plan of this article has been preserved, which we print here. Judging by the time of compilation of the draft of the C.C. notification and by the considerations set forth below in note 4, one may suppose that this plan of the article was sketched by Vladimir Ilyich also in the first half of October.

---

**V. I. LENIN.**

**THE SECOND PARTY CONGRESS.**

**THE SECOND CONGRESS.*)**

[Beginning of October 1903]

Long awaited.

Why slowly? (Socialists-revolutionaries and social-democrats. Actually a mass movement). Philistinism and politics.]

Main work of the Congress: To formulate.

Program: Its significance. End of the "nomadic" period. Bulwark in the struggle with liberals, socialists-revolutionaries, etc.

*) A line carefully struck out in the manuscript under the words "second congress" remained indeciphered. Ed.

Leadership in propaganda[*] and agitation.

Organization statute. Its significance. Centralism. Local autonomy. (2 centers.) Comradely attitude toward leaders. Personal and political relations. Working out of interpretation and methods of application of the statute. Resolutions.

Liberals (two) socialists-revolutionaries
party literature

1. liberals
2. liberals
3. socialists-revolutionaries
4. party literature
5. demonstrations
6. professional struggle
7. factory elders
8. 1901 Congress
9. Kishinev pogrom
10. sectarians
11. students
12. conduct at interrogations

demonstrations
professional struggle

important
unimportant

[*] At this point in the manuscript there appears a series of the first letters of the Greek alphabet outlined in the manner indicated and representing apparently a preliminary sketch of the number of main points of the plan. Ed.

Bund's exit. Better openly. Tactics: explanation of the harm of separateness. (Nationalism and organizational intrigues of the Bundists.)

Protocols.